Posted by Jtpsops on 1/7/2014 9:27:00 PM (view original):So you're cool with voters denying worthy players entry to the HOF purely because some of their contemporaries used steroids? Makes sense.

I guess if a couple of your coworkers were caught using drugs, and your boss said "we don't know for sure who all was using these, so we're firing everyone", you wouldn't have any beef with that.

Again, this is a bullshit argument. It's not like getting fired at all. It's like a bunch of guys got caught using drugs, probably most of the office, and so the bosses decided they weren't hanging an Employee of the Year plaque for 2013. And yeah, I think I can live with that.

That's not a true statement. Situationally, there are times it's better to paint everyone with the same brush based on the behavior of "a select few," and other times when it isn't appropriate. It is prudent to avoid people dressed in certain ways in downtown Detroit at 3 AM. Is it more likely that an individual isn't going to mug you than that he is? Yes, even in very high-crime neighborhoods. But it's still not a smart risk. On the other hand, it's not appropriate for the police to frisk that individual without cause because of the way he looks. And the example I cited above - it's not ok to fire a bunch of potentially uninvolved people because of a widespread office problem; however, it may be appropriate to withhold bonuses for a year, reduce employee awards, or cancel company events or perks. The Hall of Fame is not a right, nobody has a contract that entitles them to entry unless they are found guilty of a specific infraction. The Hall of Fame is a perk - like being trusted, or being rewarded by your boss. If the writers don't want to trust or reward anyone, that's their right. And given the circumstances, it's entirely reasonable. PED use isn't "the behavior of a select few," as you state in your most recent post. It was extremely widespread. Good players, old players trying to hang on, AAAA players trying to make the leap - all kinds of guys were using. And it wasn't always obvious who was and who wasn't. So if you want to take an ethical stance against PED use, as a HOF voter, the only way to guarantee you aren't voting for any of them is not to vote for anybody. This is a statement with which very few voters would disagree. Most obviously want to avoid voting for users but prefer to guess, as made clear by the low vote totals for Clemens, Bonds, and Big Mac and higher totals for the guys who went in, Biggio, etc. But realistically, most of those guys would have to admit there's a decent chance that one or two - or more - of the guys they voted for did use PEDs, at least experimentally, during their careers. They're willing to take that risk to enshrine deserving candidates. But if they REALLY wanted to avoid voting for PED users... they wouldn't vote.

I've said before that I'd vote in Bonds, Clemens, and Mac in a heartbeat. I think more than half of the league was using, and these guys were still the best. They deserve to go in the Hall. I wouldn't vote for nobody. I never put the guy on a pedestal, or said what he was doing was noble, as you suggested earlier. I'm simply explaining his position, and as far as it goes HE IS RIGHT. It's that simple. If he refuses to vote for a PED user, he can't vote for anybody. That's just the reality of the state of baseball through the '90s and '00s. And since the Hall is a privilege, or a bonus if you prefer, and not a right or contractual entitlement, deciding not to risk voting for any PED user is fully within the rights and obligations of a voter. It's a defensible position, and from where I stand it's a much more defensible ballot than most people have made it out to be. If we could all just agree to essentially ignore PED use and vote for the guys whose numbers say they deserve to get in, that would be my perception of the ideal solution. But in a reality in which it looks like Roger Clemens, about whom nothing has ever been "proven" either, will never be voted in by the BBWAA, it's ridiculous that we will put in a cast of guys - Thomas, Biggio, Maddux, Glavine, Thome, Pedro, Johnson, and more - at least several of whom likely did use PEDs during their careers. I can't help thinking that the ballot with only Jack Morris looks a lot more reasonable to me than all the ballots who list Frank Thomas and not Mark McGwire. Thomas was just as big a guy, if not bigger. Yet we just assume he didn't use, in a culture that supported and hid users. I'm not saying he DID use; I'm saying there's no way for me or anybody else outside his inner circle of friends, family, and teammates to know. To vote for one and not the other seems capricious and frankly indefensible. Vote for both or vote for neither, I don't care. But this random guessing is a load of BS. You've said that yourself, but the analysis you get from that statement doesn't make any sense.

Well dahs, Frank Thomas was ALWAYS a beast physically. He played college baseball and FOOTBALL for Auburn. McGwire was built like Dave Kingman when he got to the majors. By the time he retired he more closely resembled Magnus Ver Magnusson.

I agree with the totality of your post however. If the numbers produced on the field meet HOF criteria, then put 'em in. Otherwise, don't vote in any of 'em. It's a slippery slope otherwise.

In 1983 a traveling Hillerich and Bradsby exhibit featured a Babe Ruth bat. According to Dan Gutman in It Ain't Cheatin' If You Don't Get Caught, the Seattle players were admiring the bat "when outfielder Dave Henderson noticed that the round end of the bat didn't exactly match the wood of the barrel. The end was cracked, but the rest of the bat was not.

"That's a plug!" said Henderson. "This bat is corked."

As I pointed out in the Ken williams comment, Ruth was caught using an trick bat in a game in August, 1923. As I see it, nothing could be more typical of Ruth than to use a corked bat if he could get by with it. I'm amazed that whenever the subject of cheating comes up, people refuse to touch the Babe. Yet it's been conclusively proven that he used more cork than Albert Belle.

I already said I'd vote for PED guys. I just think it's an insult to the game to declare yourself a "policeman" and decide that no one from that era gets in. Clearly everyone was not on 'roids, and this guy has no problem sacrificing the innocent, including some who deserve to be in the hall, in order to punish those he feels are guilty.

How can he make a judgment call on when the "steroid era" began and how much it overlapped with Morris's career, but he can't make a judgment call on whether or not he thinks a guy like Maddux used? If a guy has never failed a drug test and never been linked to PEDs, in this age of social media, big scoops and snitches, it's probably a safe bet that he was clean.

I just think his stance is self-righteous. I don't think he cares about who gets in and who doesn't. I think he cares more about wielding the power that comes with his vote and making a name for himself.

If a guy has never failed a drug test and never been linked to PEDs, in this age of social media, big scoops and snitches, it's probably a safe bet that he was clean.

This just isn't true. Nobody was testing. Every team had the ability to request a test for any player. You know how many tests were requested under this system, in nearly 20 years? Exactly zero. And the culture was all about hiding use, not revealing it. I think it's a safe bet that we know only a tiny fraction of users.

ln response to arvid, steroids were quite common in high schools and even earlier. The fact that Frank Thomas came into pro ball big doesn't mean he wasn't using...

If a guy has never failed a drug test and never been linked to PEDs, in this age of social media, big scoops and snitches, it's probably a safe bet that he was clean.

This just isn't true. Nobody was testing. Every team had the ability to request a test for any player. You know how many tests were requested under this system, in nearly 20 years? Exactly zero. And the culture was all about hiding use, not revealing it. I think it's a safe bet that we know only a tiny fraction of users.

ln response to arvid, steroids were quite common in high schools and even earlier. The fact that Frank Thomas came into pro ball big doesn't mean he wasn't using...

You don't think there is at least one person out there that would love the publicity of being able to out a guy like Maddux?

No, that's no guarantee he didn't use. But if you haven't heard a peep about a guy, he does not deserve to be painted with that brush, regardless of how you want to rationalize it.

Roger Clemens adamantly denies having used PEDs. A court of law was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had, in fact, ever used any such substances. The same could be said of Greg Maddux; the only difference is that nobody ever accused him of it. Nobody seems to be questioning the hundreds of ballots that named Greg Maddux and not Roger Clemens. People everywhere are questioning the ballots that named neither. In what universe does that make sense?

Don't get me wrong, Greg Maddux was a great pitcher. An all-time great pitcher. But Clemens was better - easily top 3 all time. They pitched a similar number of career innings (Maddux pitched under 100 more innings than Clemens, which is a small margin with career totals around 5000). Maddux had 1 more win. Clemens had far fewer losses. Clemens had a better career ERA. Much better career ERA+. Better FIP. Better WAR on BBR and FanGraphs. Better JAWS. More WPA. More Cy Young awards. An MVP. The best 2 single-season WAR numbers between the pair. If you're just looking for a 3-4 year peak, Maddux may beat everyone in history except maybe Koufax and Pedro. But on a career basis, there's really no reasonable argument you can make that Maddux was the better pitcher. He just wasn't. So I'm sick and tired of people saying you can't "paint Maddux with that brush," but you can go target Clemens in spite of the fact that he was brought to court under perjury charges for denying PED use and found not guilty. We're basically allowing guys to make their own arbitrary judgements about who probably did or didn't use. And we know that they're not going to get them all right. So we're punishing a guy for getting accused of something that nobody could prove, but rewarding another guy for getting lucky enough never to be fingered? And this is somehow better than saying I'm not going to vote for anybody that had access to the stuff?

"but you can go target Clemens in spite of the fact that he was brought to court under perjury charges for denying PED use and found not guilty"

Yes, you can. Because the standards for HOF voting are not the same as "what can be proven or disproven in a court of law". And even within the legal system, "not guilty" does not necessarily mean "innocent". It just means that the prosecution was not able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Clemens trial, the star witness, Brian McNamee, had a lot of baggage which cast doubt on his credibility. But the fact that there were credibility issues does not necessarily mean that McNamee's testimony was not mostly truthful and accurate.

So, not by going on what was or was not admitted, or what was or was not proven in a court of law, but by going on what passes the smell test based on what we have heard from over the years about Clemens, the real question is whether YOU (or anybody) believes that Clemens was a PED user, or he wasn't. And that's what you base your HOF vote on.

Clemens did EXACTLY what everyone clamored for the accused users to do. Yet, despite a lack of evidence to prove he used that was confirmed in a court of law, people still say "Yeah, whatever. I know he used."

What, EXACTLY, do you propose the accused do now?

I'll use this again. I say "tecwrg molests children" because I saw you put a hand on a boy's shoulder when you picked your son up from school. You deny it and take me to court. The court declares that there is not enough evidence to prove you molest children. After the trial, I walk out of the courtroom to a throng of reporters and say "Yeah, whatever. I know what I know."